zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Vote for removing Fanon Sections
This forum has been around for awhile yet the subject matter was never truly resolved so I'm proposing a straight out vote on the matter. The first thing that needs to be considered is whether or not we should remove fanon sections from fanon articles. That is to say should there be a section on the abridged series on Saria's page. Once this can be decided we could focus on what fanon based pages, if any, should be kept and what fanon based pages might need to be made. Oni Link 19:03, February 22, 2011 (UTC) Voting Votes for removing fanon sections from canon pages : : Well, obviously we'll keep or pages on major fanon projects, right? I don't see the need to have fanon sections for our canon pages, though. Having a section on, as you said, Saria's The Abridged Series appearance seems...I dunno. Anyway, I say we get rid of em. -'Minish Link' 19:11, February 22, 2011 (UTC) : :These sections are usually very small and all round unnecessary. Unless someone is willing to expand them greatly they should go Oni Link 21:39, March 5, 2011 (UTC) : : If major projects are kept, then sure, makes sense. But yeah, fanon shouldn't really be on canon pages... - McGillivray227 22:42, March 5, 2011 (UTC) : : This is a rare time where I see no good reason to do the other thing. Fanon on the canon pages does little more than take up space. Jedimasterlink (talk) 22:54, March 5, 2011 (UTC) : : Fanon doesn't belong there. I'd rant about the reasons but everybody's probably heard all of them a thousand times.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:21, March 7, 2011 (UTC) : : Per minish, if we keep the individual pages for big works, then it sounds good.--Hylianhero777 (talk) 21:26, March 10, 2011 (UTC) Votes for keeping fanon sections on canon pages Comments I see positive (and negative) aspects to both ways of treating this stuff, and neither outweighs the other. Can't provide a straight answer, unfortunately. I'm probably leaning towards keeping them, that is to say, if some notability rules and guidelines are established. My biggest issue with fan-created works is how the content often conflicts with what's appropriate for the ages of most people that play the games, and by extent, some editors of ZP. It'll go the way it goes, with my definitive vote or not. --AuronKaizer ' 22:55, February 22, 2011 (UTC) I was going to do this during lunch, but didn't. I don't really care whether they're removed or not. If they aren't removed we just need to figure out a standard for the fanon sections, and a level of appropriateness. And if they are inappropriate but not to the extent they can't be on the wiki, we need to make sure to check the edits so we don't have edits like that. Just let the river flow the way it will. --'BassJapas 23:31, February 22, 2011 (UTC) I think a link to this page should be replace the link to the Fanon discussion article in the head note of the site. I'm not sure how to do it though Oni Link 22:33, March 8, 2011 (UTC) First off, I'm not sure what head note you're talking about. Maybe it's a skin or browser kind of thing and I can't see it on my box? Second, when do we consider this to pass? If one were to apply the admin request rules it's technically already there, but there are still plenty of active users who have not weighed in so I'm not sure we should do it that way. If there are any more people who are sure they are neutral on this, but have not stated it here in the comments, it'd be good if you would tell us here so we know you aren't still considering how you want to vote. Remember we're talking specifically about removing fanon sections from canon pages, not removing fanon pages themselves.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 03:11, March 14, 2011 (UTC) The headnote that I'm referring to is the thing that says "Voting regarding the possibility of moving of Zeldapedia to another host is now open in the forums. All registered contributors are invited to have their say. Zeldapedia invites all registered users to discuss user templates and rules and guidelines for these, as well as a page for all rules and ideas on how to incorporate fan-made material" at the top of the page although judging by what it actually says I probably should of dismissed it months ago. Regardless I still think this page should be linked in a headnot. On that note does it show up on Oasis or is it just limited to monobook now? Oni Link 22:00, March 14, 2011 (UTC) Ok. Whatever skin I'm using (the default I guess) doesn't show that header. Still, it should be changed though so as to not refer to the move (that topic is closed, right?) and aught to point to this vote specifically. Would a decision like this be worth of some additional advertising? On the Wiki News perhaps?--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 01:03, March 15, 2011 (UTC) Reopening Seeing that this is entirely unopposed...we should probably do something about it. The only discrepancies seem to be, what counts as "noteworthy" fanon for the main pages, and what do we do with the stuff that isn't noteworthy? Here is a link to the original discussion for those who want/need a reference. I maintain my original position: keep the "official" stuff (manga, TV series, CD-i games, other Nintendo games such as Smash Bros.) on the page, give larger projects such as The Legend of Neil and the Hero of Time movie their own pages, and find some way to categorize/list other projects (adamwestslapdog's abridged series, fan games(?)) that still have information on this site. Jedimasterlink (talk) 01:31, May 17, 2011 (UTC) :I know that this seems like a completely worthless comment, as I still don't know where I stand. But I'm commenting on this to let you know that this didn't go unnoticed. --[[User:Jäzzi|'Jäzzi']](Talk) 01:40, May 17, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, comments like the above are infinitely better than silence. I agree with the ideas Jedi was saying: officially licensed non-cannon stuff like manga/smash/etc. can stay, fanon subsections are removed from cannon articles, notable works of fanon are allowed to persist on their own separate pages, and small fan works are categorized/listed on other pages. Also, are we already agreed about the part where we delete fanon sections from canon articles? If so we can go ahead and do that part, even if we're still working out the details about categorizing/listing fan works and which ones are worthy of their own pages and such.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 05:02, May 17, 2011 (UTC) Since there are currently no dissenting voices, I'll give this three more days. If nobody says anything by then, I will begin implementing what the majority has agreed should be done. We will still need to work on a categorizing system for the smaller projects, but I fear that if we don't get started on what most of us have agreed on doing soon, it will never get done at all. Jedimasterlink (talk) 19:27, June 1, 2011 (UTC) Yay! As you can probably guess I agree with Jedi's plan. Unfortunately I won't really be able to help with getting it done (should it go on unopposed) given how busy I am right now, but I will provide moral support here by saying that everyone who does help implement it awesome.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 04:30, June 3, 2011 (UTC) It has been just over a full 72 hours. The dawn of A New Day is upon us. Speak now, or forever hold your peace. Jedimasterlink (talk) 19:39, June 4, 2011 (UTC) I say onward and let this deed be done Oni Link 22:40, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :If I am interpreting all this correctly, the removal of fannon sections from cannon pages has already begun. If you see a fannon section remaining in any such pages then it should be fine to go ahead and take it out. There's just a lot of pages like that so we haven't made it to all of them yet.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 03:29, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ::It is erased then. I've seen the fanon info being erased from pages, but didn't know when or what was the criteria made. This is another thing that could be added to a rules page, if it is ever created. —'TheNewSheik' 05:13, June 27, 2011 (UTC) Deleting Fanon Categories I think the logical extension of removing fanon sections from cannon pages would be to remove fannon-based categories as well, such as Hero of Time Characters. Do people agree that we should delete these?--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 00:33, July 10, 2011 (UTC) :>.> I smell an oversight. --AuronKaizer ' 00:49, July 10, 2011 (UTC) :I actually already deleted Legend of Neil Characters. Since only Neil had any LoN-related info after the fanon-purge, I felt the category wasn't serving any purpose. Needless to say, I agree with this. Jedimasterlink (talk) 03:16, July 11, 2011 (UTC) :Delete it we shall? -'Minish Link 03:27, July 11, 2011 (UTC)